How hard is it to figure out that these sorts of fees are made hard to figure out for a reason, and if charging that much deceptively is made impossible, firms aren't going to be able to charge as much openly.

Very hard, if you're working exclusviely with models that assume perfectly competitive/efficient markets.

To elaborate, the "conventional wisdom" is that the fees were made deceptive in order to gain market share from competitors. I.e., some companies would lower transparent fees and raise deceptive fees because consumers are stupid and would think the fees were lower and switch to those companies. And then maybe the whole industry adopts those practices, to keep from being left behind. But the idea that these fees were just additional gouging of consumers, and not offsets to lower fees somewhere else, is, to an economist, as you say, unpossible. ("If they're making excess profits in this competitive market, why wouldn't some company (a new entrant or an existing player) lower their transparent fees even more in order to gain market share?") So, if you get rid of the deceptive fees, the transparent ones "should", in theory, have to go back up to offset the loss.

It's really striking how economists who study the fascinating dynamics of the drug trade don't pay much attention to killing competitors and witnesses as a viable business tactic (well, sure, it imposes extra expenses...).

The best thing about the standard perfectly-competitive microeconomic model is that it expresses in figures the conservative maxim that all government intervention is either useless or counterproductive.

I'm glad to see that some of those associated with the U of C feel a responsibility to help mitigate the active harm that that brilliant evil morons so prevalent at that institution* continually inflict upon the world.

I mean, one has to admit that if the campus were burnt to the ground and crazy people made houses from the bones of the professors from within which they then flung poo at passers-by, humanity would be better served.

The best thing about the standard perfectly-competitive microeconomic model is that it expresses in figures the conservative maxim that all government intervention is either useless or counterproductive.

Which actually isn't unreasonable at all. Unless there are externalities or transaction costs or some barriers to entry/exit or a finite number of buyers or sellers or informational gaps/asymmetries or there are public goods involveds, government intervention in a market probably really is either useless or counterproductive. It's a perfectly sound theory. The unreasonable part is acting as if there are any real-world markets that can usefully be described this way.

I am looking forward to Dr. Mahoney's work on the minimum wage and the effect of government spending during an economic slump. Maybe he'll discover stuff that everybody outside the University of Chicago has known for a century or so.

"I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children's future and their ability to provide for that future. I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.

What I found most interesting about this is that she calls it "the Texas dream" not the American dream.
Is Texas the only state with its own dream? Does that dream involve finding oil in your backyard?

Oddly the economists who believe in the perfectly competitive market also seemed to believe that the perfect market is not one with no profits, but one with massive profits for financial institutions. And that the massive profits for financial institutions are so inevitable, such a "rule of physics" if you will, that government intervention is powerless to change them, because of the "Whac-a-Mole" rule of physics that means that if one route to profit is eliminated, another will magically appear.

Unless there are externalities or transaction costs or some barriers to entry/exit or a finite number of buyers or sellers or informational gaps/asymmetries or there are public goods involveds, government intervention in a market probably really is either useless or counterproductive.

Unless there are externalities or transaction costs or some barriers to entry/exit or a finite number of buyers or sellers or informational gaps/asymmetries or there are public goods involveds, government intervention in a market probably really is either useless or counterproductive.

cf the following infamous refutation of evolution:One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Happy to hear it! I'm a general skeptic of a lot of regulation (duck), but this was one I was in favor of because deceptive and unexpected fees, even if revenue-neutral, are still highly problematic. That increased transparency creates a more competitive market (yay competitive markets!) (duck) and thus lower prices is not a huge surprise. Most large corporations *can* belt-tighten if they need to.

I'm just sick of it, and think that libertarians who want to hang out with semi-progressive folks should basically get the same treatment as hardcore Christian fundamentalists would. That's my mission, anyway.

I know plenty of interpersonally nice libertarians who are reasonable on some issues. I also know some interpersonally nice hardcore Christian fundamentalists who are reasonable on some issues, and some interpersonally nice racists who are reasonable on some issues. My belief and hope is that people in the former category get the same degree of shaming in nominally progressive online fora as people in the latter two categories. Only speaking for myself, here, of course.

But people in the latter two categories generally don't show up and engage in discussion in nominally progressive online fora. I mean, have we had any hardcore Christian fundamentalist commenters here?

OK. I'm past the "write something for work" crisis with several typos but no profanity. Now I just need to fill in some Performance Feedback for people. "Choice of evaluator reveals that this motherfucker lacks sound business judgment."

Watch out Halford, without libertarians around to draw fire semi-progressives might turn on defenders of corporate IP.

That discussion really shows how hard it is to think your way out of the neoclassical box. Economists probably spend more than half their time positing and exploring the implications of market imperfections, but when your whole intellectual toolkit starts with 'this crazy model is the natural order of things UNLESS x, y, z' then the crazy model will exercise an irresistible gravitational pull.

I also like how the little disclosure 'nudge' had a miniscule effect (change of one-half percent in people who acted wisely) while just flat-out banning nasty stuff transferred tens of billions to consumers.

In order to demonstrate the infinite efficiency of markets free from interference of external regulations, the Booth School of Business will open a satellite campus in Mogadishu. In gratitude to their excellent service, all tenured professors will immediately be transferred there.